Reliance Industries Ltd & Anor v The Union of India

On remission of an arbitral award, the tribunal’s jurisdiction is determined by the court’s order, read with the judgment and surrounding circumstances. Where an issue was remitted for reconsideration because it had not been decided, the tribunal may determine that issue on the merits. It is not confined to deciding whether it had previously intended to reject it, unless the remission order imposes that limitation.

A tribunal may consider documents already on the arbitration record and further argument supporting the remitted issue where no new issue or amendment is involved. Questions of procedural fairness and the opportunity to respond concern the tribunal’s powers and procedure, not necessarily its substantive jurisdiction.

The claimants challenged or sought to uphold parts of a further arbitral award concerning cost recovery under production sharing contracts. The Government challenged the tribunal’s jurisdiction, powers and compliance with its general duty under the Arbitration Act 1996. The claimants separately challenged the tribunal’s refusal to consider further submissions and documents on the remitted Agreements Case.

The proceedings followed an earlier decision of Popplewell J, which remitted parts of the arbitral award after finding that the Agreements Case had not been addressed. The principal issues were the scope of the remission, the tribunal’s ability to reconsider the merits, and whether it could consider material already on the record.

1. The Government’s challenges failed. The claimants’ section 67 challenge succeeded. Further or consequential argument, including relief and the terms of the remission order, was to be addressed subsequently.
2. On a challenge under section 67 of the Arbitration Act 1996, the court determines the question of substantive jurisdiction afresh. The tribunal’s revived jurisdiction extends to what is necessary to give effect to the remission order, interpreted in its context and in light of the reasons for that order.
3. The earlier order remitted the relevant paragraphs because the tribunal had failed to decide the Agreements Case. It therefore gave the tribunal jurisdiction to determine that case. The tribunal was not required first to decide whether, when making the original award, it had intended to reject the case, and only then proceed to the merits.
4. A tribunal has not finally decided a case on its merits until it issues an award containing that decision. The principle of finality does not prevent reconsideration where the remission order requires consideration of an issue that the original award expressly left undecided. The scope of remission remains limited by the order: a tribunal cannot reconsider unrelated matters.
5. The tribunal had jurisdiction to consider documents already on the record and further argument supporting the Agreements Case. The relevant distinction was between a new issue requiring amendment and further submissions or evidence relating to the existing remitted issue. Procedural fairness could be protected by allowing the opposing party an opportunity to respond; it did not convert the matter into one of substantive jurisdiction.
6. The tribunal was entitled to consider witness evidence in assessing the agreement case. The fact that evidence had also been relevant to estoppel did not establish that the tribunal used subjective evidence impermissibly to construe, vary or contradict the written resolutions. Nor did the tribunal fail its general duty under section 33 by assessing documents and argument without unfairness.
7. The tribunal also had jurisdiction to consider the additional cost figures and the management committee resolution concerning infill wells. The Government’s arguments about timing, res judicata, issue estoppel and the mechanism of recovery did not establish a jurisdictional or serious procedural error.

The judgment records an earlier first-instance decision concerning the same arbitration:

• High Court (Commercial Court): Popplewell J’s decision, [2018] EWHC 822 (Comm); [2018] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 562, remitted parts of the arbitral award for reconsideration.
• High Court (Commercial Court): The present court dismissed the Government’s challenges and upheld the claimants’ section 67 challenge.